1995 PLP 1806 (MLD)

The petitioner through this petition under section 417, Cr.P.C. seeks leave to appeal against the order of learned trial Court, dated 26‑3‑1995; whereby the learned Court acquitted respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 307/325/326/447/148/149, P.P.C.

2. Briefly facts of the case are that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the appeal alongwith other 5 armed persons allegedly trespassed into the agricultural land of the petitioner; whereby F.I.R. No.269, dated 18‑7‑1986 under section 324/148/149, P.P.C. was got registered with Police Station Saddar, Bhakkar against the 5 persons but the respondents Nos.1 and 2's names were dropped by the local police; hence the petitioner filed .a private complaint against 7 persons including the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 11‑8‑1986. The learned trial Court convicted the 5 persons involved in the crime but acquitted the respondents Nos.1 and 2, , hence this petition.

3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel at length and have gone through the record.

4. It is an admitted fact that Mst. Gamu; complainant in case F.I.R. No.269 aforementioned Exh.PA. did not implicate the respondents Nos.1 and 2; the petitioner son of said Mst. Gamu lodged the private complaint after a delay of twenty days and is not an eye‑witness. It is also an admitted fact that the disputed property is a subject of prolonged civil litigation between the parties. The learned trial Judge while acquitting the respondents observed that Mst. Gamu P.W.10 complainant of F.I.R. did not make specific allegations against the respondents and she did not explain the circumstances prompting police not to mention the names of respondents in her statement Exh.PA. Further observed that the petitioner, complainant did not claim to have seen the occurrence.

5. The order of acquittal as contended by the learned counsel apparently is neither the result of misreading or non‑reading of evidence nor it could be termed as so perverse as to occasion miscarriage of justice.

6. It is well‑settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is double presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person who has secured acquittal; one that every accused shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise; the other that a competent Court of law has adjudged him not guilty. Interference in order of acquittal can only be made if the order of Court below is manifestly wrong or perverse or is based on the view of the evidence which no Judicial Officer would take, or the Court has misread the evidence or when non‑interference will result in miscarriage of justice as observed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in case Muhammad Asghar and another v. The State PLD 1994 SC 301.

7. The learned counsel could not satisfy the Court that the learned trial Court misread the evidence in a way which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice; no such case is made out. The petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./S‑440/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.